It should be relative to the size of the companies actually responsible for the fraud, as determined by a paper trail, not the middle-man sanitized third-party vendors:
“Two of the California-based companies, LCX Digital Media and digital marketing company Lead ID, LLC., were hired by the broadband industry…”
I don't think you quite understand what people are saying when they talk about scaling fines. The point is to make this behavior a net loss in profit, which works across any company scale. However much money they made given illegal behavior, fine them some multiple N where N > 1 (and preferably more like N > 3 or more). Even if that doesn't get implemented for some reason, you can have fines like "$max(X * company size, Y)" that also handle any company size.
Also focus on the people behind these decisions. Some senior execs getting real jail will have a greater deterrence than a company fine, plus doesn't punish shareholders.
> People have latched onto this idea that penalties should be relative to the size of the company. Well then, this is what you get. Penalties should be relative to the scale and severity of the crime.
It depends on whether your goal is deterring bad behavior or deploying revenge.
The reason the punishment has to be so extreme is that if it’s not they will discount by probability of being caught (and getting enough quality evidence etc). So it can’t be a reasonable punishment that is just a bit more than the benefit. It needs to be an extreme deterrent so as to prevent them even doing the calculation.
A fine so large that it sharply+persistently reduces dividend payouts and share value sends a strong signal about bad corporate behavior. It could be exampled after the sort of fines that govs like to inflict on the poor.
It's also exactly the sort of fine that gov regulators compulsively seem to avoid.
Well then, this is what you get.
Penalties should be relative to the scale and severity of the crime.